`066241.0125
`
`PATENT REEXAMINATION
`901008,342, 901008,562, 901008,574
`
`1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`. Reexam Controls No.:
`
`901008,342, 901008,562, 901008,574
`
`Filing Date:
`
`Group Art Unit:
`
`Examiner:
`
`Confirmation No.:
`
`Patentees:
`
`U.S. Patent No.:
`
`Issued:
`
`Title:
`
`November 27,2006
`
`3992
`
`Mary Steelman
`
`2076
`
`Keith Lowery, et al.
`
`5,894,554
`
`April 13, 1999
`
`SYSTEM FOR MANAGING DYNAMIC WEB PAGE
`
`GENERA TION REQUESTS BY INTERCEPTING
`
`REQUEST AT WEB SERVER AND ROUTING TO
`
`PAGE SERVER THEREBY RELEASING WEB
`
`SERVER TO PROCESS OTHER REQUESTS
`
`Mail Stop: Appeal Brief - Patents
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`Dear Sir:
`
`Amended Appeal Brief
`Appellants have appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the
`
`"Board") from the decision of the Examiner mailed April 29, 2009, (the "Final Office
`
`Action") in the above-identified ex parte reexamination proceeding. Appellants filed a
`
`Notice of Appeal on August 31, 2009, with the statutory fee of $540.00. Appellants filed an
`
`Appeal Brief on November 2, 2009, with authorization to apply the statutory fee of $540.00
`
`to Appellants' Deposit Account. Appellants respectfully submit this Amended Appeal Brief
`
`in response to the Notice of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief dated December 14, 2009, and the
`
`Notice of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief dated December 18,2009.
`
`DAL01:1109089.1
`
`PN·00126495
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2041, pg. 1
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`066241.0125
`
`PATENT REEXAMINATION
`901008,342, 901008,562, 901008,574
`
`2
`
`Real Party in Interest
`
`This patent IS currently owned by Parallel Networks, LLC, as indicated by an
`
`Assignment from epicRealm Licensing, LP, recorded on September 10, 2007, in the
`
`Assignment Records of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) at Reel
`
`019795, Frame 0968 (five pages). EpicRealm Licensing, LLC, the party named in certain of
`
`the lawsuits identified in the next section of this Appeal Brief, assigned the patent to
`
`epicRealm Licensing, LP, as indicated by a conveyance in a merger agreement recorded on
`
`September 10,2007, in the Assignment Records of the PTO at Reel 019795, Frame 0962 (six
`
`pages).
`
`DALOl:1109089.1
`
`PN·00126496
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2041, pg. 2
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`066241.0125
`
`PATENT REEXAMINA nON
`901008,342, 901008,562, 901008,574
`
`3
`
`I.
`
`Litigation
`
`Related Appeals and Interferences
`
`Appellants hereby inform the Board that U.S. Patent No. 5,894,554 is or has been
`
`involved in the following litigation matters:
`
`1. epicRealm Licensing, LLC v. Autoflex Leasing, Inc, et aI., 2:05CV00163 (E.D.
`
`Tex.).
`
`Tex.).
`
`2.
`
`Oracle Corporation, et al v. epicRealm Licensing LP, 1 :06CV00414 (D. Del.).
`
`3.
`
`Quinstreet Inc. v. Parallel Networks, LP, 1 :06CV00495 (D. Del.).
`
`4.
`
`epicRealm Licensing, LLC v. Franklin Covey Co., et aI, 2:05CV00356 (E.D.
`
`5.
`
`epicRealm Licensing, LP. v. Various, Inc., 2:07CV00030 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Parallel Networks, LLC v. Priceline.Com, Inc., et aI., 2:0SCV00045 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`Parallel Networks, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., et aI., 2:07CV00562 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`S.
`
`epicRealm Licensing, LLC v. Speedera Networks, Inc, 2:05CV00150 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`9. epicRealm Licensing, LLC v. The Macerich Company, 5:07CVOOlSl (E.D. Tex.).
`
`10. Parallel Networks, LLC v. Microsoft, 2009CV00172 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`II.
`
`PTO Appeals
`
`Additionally, Appellants hereby inform the Board that the merged Reexamination of
`
`Control Nos. 901008,343, 90100S,568, 901008,584, which is a reexamination of the patent that
`
`is a divisional of this case, is on Appeal to the Board. An Appeal Brief has been filed in the
`
`divisional case.
`
`DALOI:II09089.1
`
`PN·00126497
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2041, pg. 3
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`066241.0125
`
`PATENT REEXAMINATION
`901008,342,901008,562, 901008,574
`
`4
`
`Status of Claims
`
`Claims 1-11 are subject to reexamination and Claims 1-11 are rejected. Claims 12-
`
`281 have previously been added and stand rejected. Thus, Claims 1-281 were pending in this
`
`Application and stood rejected pursuant to the Final Office Action. On December 30, 2009,
`
`Appellants filed an amendment pursuant to 37 C.F .R. § 41.33(b)(1) cancelling Claim 281.
`
`This amendment has not been entered by the Examiner as of the date of filing this Amended
`
`Appeal Brief. However, in light of the Examiner's comments in the Notice of Non(cid:173)
`
`Compliant Appeal Brief, Appellants do not address substantively the rejections of Claim 281.
`
`Thus, Claims 1-280 are finally rejected and are all presented for Appeal. All pending claims
`
`are shown in Appendix A, along with an indication of the status of those claims.
`
`In
`
`particular, the claims stand objected tolrejected as follows.
`
`I.
`
`The Examiner objects to Claim 127 for being dependent on Claim 127.
`
`2.
`The Examiner objects to the term "pursuant to" in Claims 21-22, 51-52, 81-82,
`111-112,130-131,150-151, 170-171, 190-191,210-211, 230-231, 250-251, and 270-271. 1
`
`3.
`
`The Examiner objects to the term "consists of freeing at least some resources"
`
`in Claims 16,46,76, 106, 125, 145, 165, 185,205,225,245, and 265.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.c. § 112, second paragraph, as being
`
`indefinite with respect to the term "any page server" identified by the Examiner.
`
`5.
`
`Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
`
`indefinite with respect to the term "information used to select said page server" identified by
`
`the Examiner.
`
`6.
`
`Claims 28-29 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
`
`as being indefinite with respect to the terms "said dispatcher" and "the plurality of page
`
`servers" identified by the Examiner.
`
`7.
`
`Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.c. § 112, second paragraph, as being
`
`indefinite with respect to the term "the selected page server" identified by the Examiner.
`
`8.
`
`Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
`
`indefinite with respect to the term "said page server" identified by the Examiner.
`
`I Appellants believe a typographical error occurred in the objection beginning after 271 at which the objection
`reads "82, 132, 151, 152, 171, 172." These claims either have already been identified earlier in the objection or
`do not include the term "pursuant to,"
`If Appellants' understanding is incorrect, notice of such would be
`appreciated.
`
`DALO I: II 09089.1
`
`PN·00126498
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2041, pg. 4
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`066241.0125
`
`PATENT REEXAMINATION
`901008,342,901008,562,901008,574
`
`5
`
`9.
`
`Claim 37 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
`
`indefinite with respect to the term "said page server" identified by the Examiner.
`
`10.
`
`Claim 39 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
`
`indefinite with respect to the terms "the selected page server" and "said page server"
`
`identified by the Examiner.
`
`11.
`
`Claim 40 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
`
`indefinite with respect to the term "said page server" identified by the Examiner.
`
`12.
`
`Claim 41 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
`
`indefinite with respect to the terms "the selected page server" and "said page server"
`
`identified by the Examiner.
`
`13.
`
`Claim 49 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
`
`indefinite with respect to the term "the page server" identified by the Examiner.
`
`14.
`
`Claim 131 stands rejected under 35 U.S.c. § 112, second paragraph, as being
`
`indefinite with respect to the term "information used to select said page server" identified by
`
`the Examiner.
`
`15.
`
`Claim 211 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
`
`indefinite with respect to the term "information used to select said page server" identified by
`
`the Examiner.
`
`16.
`
`Claims 29,59,89,119,138, 158, 178, 198,218,238,258, and 278 stand
`
`rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the term
`
`"relative busyness" identified by the Examiner.
`
`17.
`
`Claims 31, 39, 41, and 99 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
`
`paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the terms "informed selection" and "more
`
`efficiently" identified by the Examiner.
`
`18.
`
`Claims 26, 56, 86, 116, 135, 155, 175, 195, 215, 235, 255, and 275 stand
`
`rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the term
`
`"least busy one" identified by the Examiner.
`
`19.
`
`Claim 52 stands rejected under 35 U.S.c. § 112, second paragraph, as being
`
`indefinite with respect to the terms "wherein information used to select said page server" and
`
`"said page server" identified by the Examiner.
`
`20.
`
`Claims 53 and 55-56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
`
`as being indefinite with respect to the term "said page server" identified by the Examiner.
`
`DALO I: II 09089.1
`
`PN·00126499
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2041, pg. 5
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`066241.0125
`
`PATENT REEXAMINATION
`90/008,342,90/008,562,90/008,574
`
`6
`
`21.
`
`Claim 54 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
`
`indefinite with respect to the term "said page server" identified by the Examiner.
`
`22.
`
`Claims 58,88,118,137,157,177,197,217,237,257, and 277 stand rejected
`
`under 35 U.S.c. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the term
`
`"examining information regarding which of the plurality of page servers are capable of
`
`servicing the request" identified by the Examiner.
`
`23.
`
`Claim 59 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
`
`indefinite with respect to the term "information" identified by the Examiner.
`
`24.
`
`Claim 61 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
`
`indefinite with respect to the term "said page server" identified by the Examiner.
`
`25.
`
`Claim 69 stands rejected under 35 U.S.c. § 112, second paragraph, as being
`
`indefinite with respect to the term "said page server" identified by the Examiner.
`
`26.
`
`Claim 70 stands rejected under 35 U.S.c. § 112, second paragraph, as being
`
`indefinite with respect to the term "a dispatcher" identified by the Examiner.
`
`27.
`
`Claim 71 stands rejected under 35 U.S.c. § 112, second paragraph, as being
`
`indefinite with respect to the term "said selected page server" identified by the Examiner.
`
`28.
`
`Claim 79 stands rejected under 35 U.S.c. § 112, second paragraph, as being
`
`indefinite with respect to the term "the page server" identified by the Examiner.
`
`29.
`
`Claims 91, 99, and 101 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
`
`paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the "wherein" clauses and the term "any other
`
`type of data repository" identified by the Examiner.
`
`30.
`
`Claim 91 stands rejected under 35 U.S.c. § 112, second paragraph, as being
`
`indefinite with respect to the term "which page server" identified by the Examiner.
`
`3l.
`
`Claims 94 and 97 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
`
`being indefinite with respect to the term "said page server" identified by the Examiner.
`
`32.
`
`Claim 99 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
`
`indefinite with respect to the terms "said page server" and "about page servers" identified by
`
`the Examiner.
`
`33.
`
`Claims 99, 101-112, 120-124, 126-127, 129-131, 135, 137-144, 146-147, 149-
`
`151, 158-167, 169-170, 175, 177-187, 186, 190-191, 195, 197-199,201-204,206-208,210-
`
`211,215,217-224,226-231,235,237-244,246-251, 255, 257-264, 266-268, 270-271, 275,
`
`and 277-280 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite with
`
`DALOI:II09089.1
`
`PN·00126500
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2041, pg. 6
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`06624l.0125
`
`PATENT REEXAMINA nON
`901008,342,901008,562,901008,574
`
`7
`
`respect to the terms that are repeated a second time and lack the preceding term "said"
`
`identified by the Examiner.
`
`34.
`
`Claim 100 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
`
`indefinite with respect to the term "said dispatcher receiving ... to said selected page server"
`
`identified by the Examiner.
`
`35.
`
`Claim 101 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
`
`indefinite with respect to the terms "said page server" identified by the Examiner.
`Claims 151 and 171 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
`
`36.
`
`as being indefinite with respect to the term "wherein information used to select" identified by
`
`the Examiner.
`
`37.
`
`Claim 155 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
`
`indefinite with respect to the term "said page server . . . of a plurality of page servers"
`
`identified by the Examiner.
`
`38.
`
`Claims 158-159 and 177-178 stand rejected under 35 U.S.c. § 112, second
`
`paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the term "operable to examine information"
`
`identified by the Examiner.
`
`39.
`
`Claim 183 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
`
`indefinite with respect to the term "wherein determining that a page server should process the
`
`request includes determining that Web requests should be processed by a page server"
`
`identified by the Examiner.
`
`40.
`
`Claim 195 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
`
`indefinite with respect to the term "wherein said page server is least busy of a plurality of
`
`page servers" identified by the Examiner.
`
`4l.
`
`Claims 124-127 and 140 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
`
`paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the term "said Web server" identified by the
`
`Examiner.
`
`42.
`
`Claims 145-14, 156, and 160 stand rejected under 35 U.S.c. § 112, second
`
`paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the terms "said Web server" or "the Web
`
`server" identified by the Examiner?
`
`2 Appellants assume the Examiner intended to identify Claims 145-147. If this is incorrect, notice of such
`would be appreciated.
`
`DALOI:II09089.1
`
`PN·00126501
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2041, pg. 7
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`066241.0125
`
`PATENT REEXAMINATION
`901008,342,901008,562,901008,574
`
`8
`
`43.
`
`Claims 164-167, 176, and 180 stand rejected under 35 U.S.c. § 112, second
`
`paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the terms "said Web server" or "the Web
`
`server" identified by the Examiner.
`
`44.
`
`Claims 99, 184-187, 196, and 200 stand rejected under 35 U.S.c. § 112,
`
`second paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the terms "Web server" identified by the
`
`Examiner.
`
`45.
`
`Claims 31, 39, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.c. § 112, second paragraph,
`
`as being incomplete for omitting essential steps.
`
`46.
`
`Claims 58, 88,118,137,157,177,197,217,237,257, and 277 stand rejected
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being based on a disclosure which is not enabling.
`
`47.
`
`Claims 17-18,47-48,77-78, 107-108, 126-127, 146-147, 166-167, 186-187,
`
`206-207, 226-227, 246-247, and 266-267 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
`
`paragraph, as containing subject matter which not described in the Specification.
`
`48.
`
`Claims 58, 88, 118, 137, 157, 177, 197, 217, 237, 257, and 277 stand rejected
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 10l.
`
`49.
`
`Claims 58, 88, 118, 137, 157, 177, 197, 217, 237, 257, and 277 stand rejected
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, based on the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 10l.
`
`50.
`
`Claims 1-11, 15,20,22,27,31-41,45,50,52,57,61-71,75,80,82,87,91-
`
`101,105,110,112,117,124,129,131,136,140,144,149, 151, 156, 160, 164, 169, 171,
`
`176,180,184,189,191,196,200,204,209,211,216,220, 224, 229, 231, 236, 240, 244,
`
`249,251,256,260,264,269, 271, 276, and 280 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a) as
`
`being anticipated by Christian Derler's "The World-Wide Web Gateway to Hyper-G: Using a
`
`Connectionless
`
`Protocol
`
`to Access
`
`Session-Oriented
`
`Services,"
`
`Insitut
`
`fur
`
`Informationsverarbeitung und Comutergestitze neue Medien, pp. 1-104, March 1995.
`
`(" Derler").
`
`51.
`
`Claims 1-4,7-11,20,23,31-34,37-41,50,53,61-64,67-71,80,83, 91, 97-
`
`101,110,113,129,132,149,152,169,172, 189, 192,209,212,229,232,249,252,269, and
`
`272 stand rejected under 35 U.S.c. §102(a) as being anticipated by Carl Lagoze, et al.'s
`
`"Dienst: Implementation reference Manual," pp. 1-69, May 5, 1995 ("Dienst").
`
`52.
`
`Claims 5-6,35-36,65-66, and 95-96 stand rejected under 35 U.S.c. §103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over Dienst in view of Derler.
`
`DALOI:II09089.1
`
`PN·00126502
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2041, pg. 8
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`066241.0125
`
`PATENT REEXAMINA nON
`901008,342, 901008,562, 901008,574
`
`9
`
`53.
`
`Claims (group 1) 12-14, 19,21-26,28-30, (group 2) 42-44, 49, 51-56,58-60,
`
`(group 3) 72-74, 79, 81-86, 88-90, (group 4) 102-104, 109, 111-116, 118-120, (group 5) 121-
`
`123,128, 130-135, 137-139, (group 6) 141-143, 148, 150-155, 157-159, (group 7) 161-163,
`
`168,170-175,177-179, (group 8) 181-183, 188, 190-195, 197-199, (group 9) 201-203, 208,
`
`210-215,217-219, (group 10) 221-223, 228, 230-235, 237-239, (group 11) 241-243,248,
`
`250-255, 257-259, (group 12) 261-263, 268, 270-275, and 277-279 stand rejected under 35
`
`u.s.c. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Derler in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,459,837 to
`
`Caccavale ("Caccavale").
`
`54.
`
`Claims 16-18,46-48, 76-78, 106-108, 125-127, 145-147, 165-167, 185-187,
`
`205-207, 225-227, 245-247, and 265-267 stand rejected under 35 U.S.c. § 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Derler in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,249,291 to Popp, et al. ("Popp").
`
`55.
`
`Claims 1-11,31-41,61-71, and 91-101 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 1 02(e)
`
`as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,701,451 to Rogers, et al. ("Rogers").
`
`56.
`
`Claims 1-3,5,7-11,31-33,35,37-41,61-63,65,67-71,91-93,95, and 97-101
`
`stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being anticipated by Popp.
`
`57.
`
`Claims 1-5 and 7-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a) as being
`
`anticipated by John Gaffney's "Illustra's Web DataBlade Module, An Illustra Technical
`
`Paper," SIGMOD Record, Vol. 25, No.1, March 1996 ("Il/ustra").
`
`58.
`
`Claims 1-5 and 7-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a) as being
`
`anticipated by Alexander Clausnitzer, et al.'s "A WWW Interface to the OMNIS/Myriad
`
`Literature Retrieval Engine," 1995 ("Clausnitzer").
`
`DALOI:II09089.1
`
`PN·00126503
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2041, pg. 9
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`A TTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`066241.0125
`
`PATENT REEXAMINATION
`901008,342, 90/008,562, 90/008,574
`
`10
`
`Status of Amendments
`
`Appellants mailed a Response to Ex Parte Reexamination Final Office Action on
`
`April 30, 2009, (the "Response to Final"), which were made to obviate rejections under 35
`
`U.S.c. § 112 and many of which adopted suggestions made by the Examiner. The language
`
`that is the subject of these rejections was introduced in the Response to Non-Final Office
`
`Action mailed March 25, 2009. On or about April 13, 2009, prior to the mailing of the Final
`
`Office Action, Appellants called the Examiner and requested an interview to include the
`
`Examiner, Patent Owner's legal representatives, and one of the inventors to discuss a variety
`
`of issues, including the rejections of the claims made in the Non-Final Office Action and the
`
`amendments presented in response to the Non-Final Office Action. In the same call, Patent
`
`Owner requested an in-person interview with respect to a divisional of the present
`
`reexamination application, counterpart Reexam Control No. 90/008,343. An interview date
`
`for Reexam Control No. 90/008,343 was set for April 20, 2009, presumably because it was in
`
`an after final state, but the Examiner stated that she would not be ready to interview the
`
`present reexamination application on that date.
`
`The interview for counterpart Reexam Control No. 90/008,343 occurred on April 20,
`
`2009. During the interview, the Examiner again stated that she was not ready to discuss.the
`
`present reexamination application. While preparing for a response due April 30, 2009 for
`
`Reexam Control No. 901008,343 for consideration by the Examiner and before incorporating
`
`similar language for presentation in the present reexamination application prior to issuance of
`
`a final office action, the Examiner issued a ninety-nine page Final Office Action on April 29,
`
`2009 in the present reexamination. Patent Owner could not understand how the Examiner
`
`stated that she would not be ready to interview the present reexamination yet issue a ninety(cid:173)
`
`nine page Final Office Action just nine days later. Further, no reason was provided by the
`
`Examiner as to why an interview in the present reexamination application could not be
`
`scheduled prior to issuance of the Final Office Action.
`
`It appears that the Examiner took
`
`efforts to expedite the issuance of a final office action, thus thwarting Patent Owner's ability
`
`to present claim amendments as a matter of right prior to issuance of a final office action.
`
`Patent Owner was not given an opportunity to
`
`interview the present reexamination
`
`application or submit any additional amendments that would be considered based on what
`
`could have been learned in an interview for the present reexamination application or what
`
`was learned in the interview of counterpart Reexam Control No. 901008,343 prior to a final
`
`DALOI:II09089.1
`
`PN·00126504
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2041, pg. 10
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`066241.0125
`
`PATENT REEXAMINATION
`901008,342, 901008,562, 901008,574
`
`11
`
`office action. The result is that Patent Owner was prematurely placed in an after-final
`
`position before clear issues were developed between Patent Owner and the Examiner and
`
`without giving Patent Owner a full and fair hearing.
`
`Appellants filed the Response to Final, which included a number of amendments
`
`attempting to obviate the 112 rejections presented for the first time in the Final Office Action.
`
`The Examiner refused to enter these amendments, alleging that the amendments would
`
`require further consideration andlor a new search. See Advisory Action. Appellants have
`
`filed a Non-Fee Petition Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 for Entry of Amendments Submitted After
`
`Final Rejection in an Ex Parte Reexamination Proceeding on August 23, 2009 (the "Petition
`
`for Entry"), over two months prior to the due date for this Appeal Brief, requesting entry of
`
`the amendments in the Response to Final. Per applicable regulations and rules, this petition
`
`was to be reviewed by the Technology Center Director for the Reexaminations (the "TC
`
`Director"). However, to date, Appellants have not received a decision on the Petition for
`
`Entry. Appellants subsequently filed the Notice of Appeal for the present Appeal.
`
`In light of Appellants' desire to reduce issues for Appeal by, at a minimum, obviating
`
`the objections and a number of the rejections under 35 U.S.c. § 112 (and in light of not
`
`receiving a decision on the Petition for Entry), Appellants filed a number of Amendments
`
`after Notice of Appeal to attempt to address solely issues which the Examiner did not indicate
`
`would require further consideration and/or a new search. As of the date of filing this Appeal
`
`Brief, Appellants have not received a decision from the Examiner regarding whether any of
`
`the Amendments after Notice of Appeal to attempt to address solely issues which the
`
`Examiner did not indicate would require further consideration and/or a new search. These
`
`amendments were submitted shortly before filing of this Appeal Brief, so Appellants are not
`
`surprised that the Examiner has not had an opportunity to reconsider entry of the
`
`amendments. In any event, Appellants are hopeful that the Examiner will enter some or all of
`
`these amendments to reduce issues on Appeal and thereby advance prosecution.
`
`Therefore, none of the amendments presented after final have been entered as of the
`
`filing of this Appeal Brief. Additionally, on December 30, 2009, Appellants filed an
`
`Amendment Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.33(b)(I), cancelling Claim 281 without prejudice or
`
`disclaimer. As of the filing of this Amended Appeal Brief, the Examiner has not indicated
`
`that the Amendment cancelling Claim 281 has been entered. However, given the Examiner's
`
`DALOI: 1109089.1
`
`PN·00126505
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2041, pg. 11
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`066241.0125
`
`PATENT REEXAMINA nON
`901008,342,901008,562,901008,574
`
`12
`
`instructions in the Notice of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief, Appellant does not address herein
`
`the rejections of Claim 281.
`
`DALO I: I 109089. I
`
`PN·00126506
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2041, pg. 12
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`066241.0125
`
`PATENT REEXAMINA nON
`901008,342,901008,562,901008,574
`
`13
`
`Summary of Claimed Subject Matter
`
`The present invention relates to a method and apparatus for creating and managing
`
`custom Web sites. In certain embodiments, a computer-implemented method for managing a
`
`dynamic Web page generation request to a Web server, comprises the steps of routing a
`
`request from a Web server to a page server, the page server receiving the request and
`
`releasing the Web server to process other requests. The routing step further includes the steps
`
`of intercepting the request at the Web server and routing the request to the page server.
`
`Routing a request to a page server includes selecting which page server should process the
`
`request based on dynamic information maintained about page servers. The computer(cid:173)
`
`implemented method further comprises the steps of processing the request, the processing
`
`being performed by the page server while the Web server concurrently processes the other
`
`requests, and dynamically generating a Web page in response to the request, the Web page
`
`including data dynamically retrieved from one or more data sources.
`
`FIG. 1 illustrates a typical computer system 100 in which portions of the present
`
`invention may operate. Embodiments of the present invention are implemented as a software
`
`module, which may be executed on a computer system such as computer system 100 in a
`
`conventional manner. The application software of the preferred embodiment is stored on data
`
`storage medium 108 and subsequently loaded into and executed within computer system 100.
`
`Once initiated, the software of the preferred embodiment operates in the manner described
`
`below.
`
`FIG. 2 illustrates a typical prior art Web server environment. Web client 200 can
`
`make URL requests to Web server 201 or Web server 202. Web servers 201 and 202 include
`
`Web server executables, 201 (E) and 202(E) respectively, which perform the processing of
`
`Web client requests. Each Web server may have a number of Web pages 201(1)-(n) and
`
`202(1)-(n). Depending on the URL specified by Web client 200, the request may be routed
`
`by either Web server executable 201(E) to Web page 201 (1), for example, or from Web
`
`server executable 202(E) to Web page 202 (1). Web client 200 can continue making URL
`
`requests to retrieve other Web pages. Web client 200 can also use hyperlinks within each
`
`Web page to "jump" to other Web pages or to other locations within the same Web page.
`
`FIG. 3 illustrates this prior art Web server environment in the form of a flow diagram.
`
`In processing block 300, the Web client makes a URL request. This URL request is
`
`examined by the Web browser to determine the appropriate Web server to which to route the
`
`DALOI: 1109089. I
`
`PN·00126507
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2041, pg. 13
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`066241.0125
`
`PATENT REEXAMINA nON
`90/008,342, 90/008,562, 90/008,574
`
`14
`
`request in processing block 302. In processing block 304 the request is then transmitted from
`
`the Web browser to the appropriate Web server, and in processing block 306 the Web server
`
`executable examines the URL to determine whether it is a HTML document or a COl
`
`application. If the request is for an HTML document 308, then the Web server executable
`
`locates the document in processing block 310. The document is then transmitted back
`
`through the requesting Web browser for formatting and display in processing block 312.
`
`If the URL request is for a COl application 314, however, the Web server executable
`
`locates the COl application in processing block 316. The COl application then executes and
`
`outputs HTML output in processing block 318 and finally, the HTML output is transmitted
`
`back to requesting Web browser for formatting and display in processing block 320.
`
`This prior art Web server environment does not, however, provide any mechanism for
`
`managing the Web requests or the Web sites. As Web sites grow, and as the number of Web
`
`clients and requests increase, Web site management becomes a crucial need.
`
`For example, a large Web site may receive thousands of requests or "hits" in a single
`
`day. Current Web servers process each of these requests on a single machine, namely the
`
`Web server machine. Although these machines may be running "multi-threaded" operating
`
`systems that allow transactions to be processed by independent "threads," all the threads are
`
`nevertheless on a single machine, sharing a processor. As such, the Web executable thread
`
`may hand off a request to a processing thread, but both threads will still have to be handled
`
`by the processor on the Web server machine. When numerous requests are being
`
`simultaneously processed by multiple threads on a single machine, the Web server can slow
`
`down significantly and become highly inefficient. The claimed invention addresses this need
`
`by utilizing a partitioned architecture to facilitate the creation and management of custom
`
`Web sites and servers.
`
`FlO. 4 illustrates one embodiment of the presently claimed invention. Web client 200
`
`issues a URL request that is processed to determine proper routing. In this embodiment, the
`
`request is routed to Web server 201. Instead of Web server executable 201(E) processing the
`
`URL request, however, Interceptor 400 intercepts the request and routes it to Dispatcher 402.
`
`In one embodiment, Interceptor 400 resides on the Web server machine as an extension to
`
`Web server 201. This embodiment is appropriate for Web servers such as Netsite™ from
`
`Netscape that support such extensions. A number of public domain Web servers, such as
`
`NCSATM from the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of
`
`DALO I: 1109089.1
`
`PN·00126508
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2041, pg. 14
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`066241.0125
`
`PATENT REEXAMINA nON
`901008,342, 901008,562, 901008,574
`
`15
`
`Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, however, do not provide support for this type of extension.
`
`Thus, in an alternate embodiment, Interceptor 400 is an independent module, connected via
`
`an "intermediate program" to Web server 201. This intermediate program can be a simple
`
`CGI application program that connects Interceptor 400 to Web server 201. Alternate
`
`intermediate programs that perform the same functionality can also be implemented.
`
`In one embodiment of the invention, Dispatcher 402 resides on a different machine
`
`than Web server 201. This embodiment overcomes the limitation described above, in prior
`
`art Web servers, wherein all processing is performed by the processor on a single machine.
`
`By routing the request to Dispatcher 402 residing on a different machine than the Web server
`
`executable 201(E), the request can then be processed by a different processor than the Web
`
`server executable 201 (E). Web server executable 201 (E) is thus free to continue servicing
`
`client requests on Web server 201 while the request is processed "off-line," at the machine on
`
`w